Gamze PAKEN, Mine DÜNDAR ÇÖMLEKOĞLU, Mehmet SONUGELEN, Şebnem TÜRKÜN

Microleakage of Indirect Composite Resin Luted With Different Adhesive Cements

Objective: To evaluate the influence of different adhesive cements on the microleakage of proximal surfaces in class II indirect composite resin restorations. Material and methods: Twenty-four human extracted caries-free third molars were selected. Standard class II cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces with margins located above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Cavities were standardized by fixing the handpiece in a parallelometer during preparation. Treatment groups were divided into 4 cements: GCem LinkAce (GCm) (GC, Japan), Panavia F 2.0 (P) (Kuraray, Japan), RelyX U200 (Rx) (3M ESPE, USA), Superbond C&B (SB) (SunMedical, Japan) and control (V) (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). In each tooth, the mesial cavity was set as the experimental and the distal as a control. Restorations were fabricated with an indirect composite resin (Gradia; GC, Japan) and luted into cavities. Specimens were thermocycled (5-55Cº,5000 cycles) and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned mesiodistally and evaluated for microleakage using digital image analysis (24x; Leica optical microscope, Germany). The ordinal scale used was: 0-4 (0= no microleakage and 4= dye penetration along axial wall). Mean values for each group were recorded and statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. (alpha=0,05) Results: There were no significant differences among occlusal microleakage of all groups (GCm:0; P: 0,17±.0,4; Rx:0 and SB:0,17±.0,4) (P>0,05). The least microleakage (μm±SD) was recorded for GCm and Rx self-adhesive cements for occlusal (0.00; 0,00) and gingival (0,83±0,4; 0,50±0,5) parts, respectively. The highest microleakage was noted with SB and P at the gingival parts (2,0±1,4; 1,5±0,84), respectively and the difference was significant compared to the other groups (P

Farklı Rezin Simanlar ile Simante Edilen İndirekt Kompozit Restorasyonların Mikrosızıntı Miktarının Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Sınıf II indirekt kompozit resin restorasyonlarda, farklı adeziv simanların proksimal yüzeylerdeki mikrosızıntıya etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu çalışmaya 24 adet çekilmiş, çürüksüz üçüncü molar diş dahil edildi. Standart Sınıf II kaviteler dişlerin hem distal hem de mesial yüzeylerinde ve mine-sement birleşiminden yukarıda olacak şekilde hazırlandı. Çalışma grupları 4 siman grubuna ayrıldı: GCem LinkAce (GCm) (GC, Japonya), Panavia F 2.0 (P) (Kuraray, Japonya), RelyX U200 (Rx) (3M ESPE, ABD), Superbond C&B (SB) (SunMedical, Japonya) ve kontrol (V) (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Her bir diş için mesial kavite çalışma grubu olacak şekilde ve distal kavite ise kontrol grubu olacak şekilde ayarlandı. Restorasyonlar indirekt kompozit materyalinden (Gradia; GC, Japonya) elde edildi ve kavitelere yapıştırıldı. Örneklere termosiklus uygulandı (5-55Cº,5000 döngü) ve sonrasında örnekler 24 saat boyunca %50 gümüş nitrat solüsyonunda bekletildi. Dişlerden mesio-distal olarak kesit alındı ve mikrosızıntı miktarları dijital görüntüleme yöntemi ile (24x; Leica optik mikroskop, Almanya) değerlendirildi. Kullanılan sıralı ölçek: 0- 4 (0 = mikro sızıntı yok ve 4 = aksiyel duvar boyunca boya penetrasyonu). Her grup için ortalama değerler kaydedilmiş ve bu değerler Wilcoxon Signed Ranks testi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. (alpha=0,05) Bulgular: Tüm grupların oklüzal mikrosızıntı değerleri arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktur (GCm: 0; P: 0,17 ± .0,4; Rx: 0 ve SB: 0,17 ± .0,4) (P> 0,05). En az mikrosızıntı değerleri (μm ± SD) sırasıyla oklüzal (0.00; 0,00) ve gingival (0,83 ± 0,4; 0,50 ± 0,5) ksımlar için GCm ve Rx kendinden adezivli simanlar için kaydedildi. En yüksek mikrosızıntı SB ve P ile gingival kısımlarda (2,0 ± 1,4; 1,5 ± 0,84) kaydedildi ve fark diğer gruplara göre anlamlıdır. (P

PDF

___

1. Ferreira MC, Vieira RS. Marginal leakage in direct and indirect composite resin restorations in primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Dent 2008;36(5):322-5.

2. Priyalakshmi S MR. A review on marginal deterioration of composite restoration. J Dent Med Sci 2014(13):6-9.

3. Pashley DH. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod 1990;16(2):70-7.

4. Perdigão J. Dentin bonding as a function of dentin structure. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):277-301.

5. Krejci I, Lutz F, Gautschi L. Wear and marginal adaptation of composite resin inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72(3):233-44.

6. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204(9):505- 11.

7. Sezinando A. Looking for the ideal adhesive – A review. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial. 2014;55(4):194-206.

8. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation modes. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(3):257-62.

9. Going RE. Microleakage around dental restorations: a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc 1972;84(6):1349-57.

10. Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of Micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1(4):177-88.

11.Bedran de Castro AK, Pimenta LA, Amaral CM, et al. Evaluation of microleakage in cervical margins of various posterior restorative systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002;14(2):107-14.

12.Cal E, Celik EU, Turkun M. Microleakage of IPS empress 2 inlay restorations luted with self-adhesive resin cements. Oper Dent 2012;37(4):417-24.

13. Uludag B, Ozturk O, Ozturk AN. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102(4):235- 41.

14.Braga RR, Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Polymerization contraction stress in dual-cure cements and its effect on interfacial integrity of bonded inlays. J Dent 2002;30(7-8):333-40.

15.Casagrande L, Brayner R, Barata JS, et al. Cervical microleakage in composite restorations of primary teeth--in vitro study. J Dent 2005;33(8):627-32.

16. Shih WY. Microleakage in different primary tooth restorations. J Chin Med Assoc 2016;79(4):228-34.

17. Han SH, Sadr A, Tagami J, et al. Internal adaptation of resin composites at two configurations: Influence of polymerization shrinkage and stress. Dent Mater 2016;32(9):1085-94.

18. Miletic V, Peric D, Milosevic M, et al. Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites. Dent Mater 2016;32(11):1441-51.

19.Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, et al. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39(10):643-7.

20. Sparks JD, Hilton TJ, Davis RD, et al. The influence of matrix use on microleakage in Class 5 glassionomer restorations. Oper Dent 1992;17(5):192-5.

21. Hofmann N, Hunecke A. Influence of curing methods and matrix type on the marginal seal of class II resinbased composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):97-105.

22.Chen X, Cuijpers VM, Fan MW, et al. Validation of micro-CT against the section method regarding the assessment of marginal leakage of sealants. Aust Dent J 2012;57(2):196-9.

23. Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Loos-Ayav C, et al. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of indirect composite inlays cemented with four luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(6):563-70.

24.Campos EA, Ardu S, Lefever D, et al. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014;42(5):575-81.

25. Agarwal RS, Hiremath H, Agarwal J, et al. Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(1):56-61..